4 ms·

'Recent' needs to be interpreted in biblical terms - the book I was thinking of is the Gosple of Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas https:/

by NeoTar 3y ago

'Recent' needs to be interpreted in biblical terms - the book I was thinking of is the Gosple of Thomas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas - discovered in 1945 (the 'Q' hypothesis having been made around 1900).

Jedd 3y ago
Okay, Thomas - lots of dispute about when it was written, and the anthology style makes timing even harder to determine, while increasing the chance it was modified over the centuries. I recalled something about the intrigue over some parchments from this collection, and found this recent story [0] about the alleged illegal sale, recovery, translation efforts, and (this year) publication of some fragments. One of the researchers is quoted in that article with a 'This is not Q' statement. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/scholars-publish-new-papyrus-with-early-sayings-of-jesus https://www.thedailybeast.com/scholars-publish-new-papyrus-w...
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Yes - before I go on, please note this is not my area of expertise, but just something I am interested in. I haven't seen anywhere which suggests that Thomas is Q, but to me if a book of biblical quotations is hypothesised when none has previously been found, and forty-five years later a book of biblical quotations is discovered (which, despite uncertainty about its timing, certainly dates to at least a millennium before the hypothesis) that lends some weight to the hypothesis. Of course, given my general ignorance in this area, perhaps books of quotations from this time are common, and hypothesising the existence of one is like hypothesising the existing of a website for a popular TV show in 2023 (i.e. a meaningless proposition).
  - Jedd 3y ago
    No, that sounds fairly reasonable - not necessarily the 'hypothesised and then discovered, therefore credible' (that may be survivorship bias), but certainly the potential for that document to be 'Q'. Given 'Q source' (tautology, forgive me) was a conceptual construct to try to explain a part of the synoptic problem, there's no reason to believe it was necessarily a single document in the modern sense, or that earlier versions (that we don't have) may be subsets of things we actually subsequently got our hands on.

by NeoTar 3y ago

Jedd 3y ago

Okay, Thomas - lots of dispute about when it was written, and the anthology style makes timing even harder to determine, while increasing the chance it was modified over the centuries. I recalled something about the intrigue over some parchments from this collection, and found this recent story [0] about the alleged illegal sale, recovery, translation efforts, and (this year) publication of some fragments. One of the researchers is quoted in that article with a 'This is not Q' statement. [0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/scholars-publish-new-papyrus-with-early-sayings-of-jesus https://www.thedailybeast.com/scholars-publish-new-papyrus-w...

NeoTar 3y ago
Yes - before I go on, please note this is not my area of expertise, but just something I am interested in. I haven't seen anywhere which suggests that Thomas is Q, but to me if a book of biblical quotations is hypothesised when none has previously been found, and forty-five years later a book of biblical quotations is discovered (which, despite uncertainty about its timing, certainly dates to at least a millennium before the hypothesis) that lends some weight to the hypothesis. Of course, given my general ignorance in this area, perhaps books of quotations from this time are common, and hypothesising the existence of one is like hypothesising the existing of a website for a popular TV show in 2023 (i.e. a meaningless proposition).
- Jedd 3y ago
  No, that sounds fairly reasonable - not necessarily the 'hypothesised and then discovered, therefore credible' (that may be survivorship bias), but certainly the potential for that document to be 'Q'. Given 'Q source' (tautology, forgive me) was a conceptual construct to try to explain a part of the synoptic problem, there's no reason to believe it was necessarily a single document in the modern sense, or that earlier versions (that we don't have) may be subsets of things we actually subsequently got our hands on.